You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

That is the dumbest statement I have ever heard. Give me one god damn speck of wisdom or knowledge that supports this claim. It strikes me as being profoundly moronic, but maybe I misunderstood your statement.

The last time you had a Social Democratic Party was around the end of the 19th Century. And it was called the, "Populist Party".

It didn't last very long and today the word, "populist", is only used in a pejorative sense.

So you have two parties of business that are marketed by Public Relations firms.

And Public Relations are synonymous with public lying.

So essentially you are a one party state, where, quite naturally few people vote.

But at the same time you tell us you are the most democratic country in the world. And we should all follow your example.

When the government officially goes Europe on us and starts fully nationalizing the banks, I will at that point concede that we have fallen off the cliff of socialism towards the bottomless pit of fascism.

I've got news for you: We won't even be at socialism yet.

Secondly, socialism and fascism are not on a linear path.

Originally Posted by Risen

That is the dumbest statement I have ever heard.

Well, nearly ever European I've talked to about it has said this is the case, and they usually aren't ashamed of it. It really depends on your idea of left-wing and right-wing.

If you mean that right-wing = less government intervention, and left-wing = more government intervention, then I can say that the USA is more right-wing than most of the developed world. Take a lot at a lot of western Europe. Higher taxes, far more present and elaborate social or government programs (universal healthcare), way more of the work force is employed by the government than here, it's well known that European goverments tend to have more control over businesses (and exercise it more often) than the US government, and lot of them have tighter security measures. Have you seen England these days? There are police cameras everywhere.

So, if that's your measure of right-wing vs left-wing, then take a trip to Europe and piss yourself. Japan is not as left-wing as it was, but it's still a good choice. And can we forget the world's biggest and fastest up-and-comer? China. Now that is a government that the Eurpopeans and Japanese consider scary.

Go to sleep, iguana.

_________________________________INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

So essentially you are a one party state, where, quite naturally few people vote.

1.) There is a large difference between social-liberal (NOT in the American sense) parties leaning toward left-wing populism and liberal-conservative parties leaning toward right-wing populism...especially when each political actor has far more independence from the party leadership than is typical in most democracies.

2.) Our country, like Switzerland, suffers from "voter fatigue," caused by having more voting opportunities than is typical in most modern democracies-its a side effect of federalism and a constitutionally limited federal government leading to citizens constantly voting for officials that would be either redudant or appointed under centralized systems without explicit limits on the authority of the Federal government. To me, its a small price to pay.

3.) Democracy is a necessary aspect of liberalism (again, not in the American sense), or the sustainable protection of individual rights and the promotion of the capacity for individuals to determine their own lives-its not an end in itself. Besides, near-universal voting through government coercion is not exactly something to brag about...

If you want to see the results of socialism, look to the UK. Never has a developed country gone so wrong so quickly in peace time. 5m unemployed people claiming out-of-work benefits have been out of work for more than a year and aren't even searching for jobs. Why bother when you earn more from benefits than a menial labour job? I watched a programme (ironically hosted by John Prescott, uber-socialist and uber-fool) where this family on benefits with about 5 kids (they always have lots of kids because they can actually afford them unlike normal working class people with all their taxes) and the mother said "Ooh, the kids refuse to wear anything but Reebok trainers!" Erm, since when have a normal working family had the luxury to only buy designer clothing?! Even Prescott said "I'm sure that [the husband] could find a job if he wanted. He looks able." Well, duh!! Just before this, he'd argued with a guy who'd complained about these sort of scroungers.
Is it any wonder our economy is suffering so badly from recession when such a huge number of unproductive people are draining state resources?

If you're talking about government control over the means of production, then yes it is a linear path. Government coercion and indoctrination of the public become increasingly necessary in order to make such a system function, and internationalist socialist agendas are eventually recognized as unattainable, leading to more of a national (or regional, if the normative environment permits) focus, and therefore more antagonistic dyadic relations.

Well, nearly ever European I've talked to about it has said this is the case, and they usually aren't ashamed of it. It really depends on your idea of left-wing and right-wing.

If you mean that right-wing = less government intervention, and left-wing = more government intervention, then I can say that the USA is more right-wing than most of the developed world. Take a lot at a lot of western Europe. Higher taxes, far more present and elaborate social or government programs (universal healthcare), way more of the work force is employed by the government than here, it's well known that European goverments tend to have more control over businesses (and exercise it more often) than the US government, and lot of them have tighter security measures. Have you seen England these days? There are police cameras everywhere.

So, if that's your measure of right-wing vs left-wing, then take a trip to Europe and piss yourself. Japan is not as left-wing as it was, but it's still a good choice. And can we forget the world's biggest and fastest up-and-comer? China. Now that is a government that the Eurpopeans and Japanese consider scary.

That is my point, Poriferan. Whether you are prepared to realize it or not, we are headed almost exactly towards the European model. We are already going far down the road of "big brother" surveillance. I bet you have no idea about what was just passed in the spending bill, the beginnings of a smart grid that will monitor how you use EVERY electrical device in your home, thus keeping track of your energy usage and carbon footprint. The LEFT of this country would like to tax you for how much CO2 you use. The LEFT of this country would like to tax you for every mile you drive in your car through GPS tracking (in some states). We have just passed the beginnings of universal health care through card check bill and the stimulus/spending bill. We are paying for all of it with debt. The government has nearly as much involvement in business through regulation as Europe does. Government on the state and federal levels has ballooned like never before in the past decades, and upon the wing of our current debt spending. The government is already in bed with big businesses that fit their agenda (look up the solar panel company that Barack Obama signed the spending bill at, a company who was getting money from government/tax payers and is being bailed out through the spending package). They are on their way to nationalizing the banks and big business (mortgage companies and likely the auto industry because GM and others need more bailout money).

I could go on and on and on about how CLOSE we are to the European model and how we are racing closer towards it, but it wont make a bit of difference if you can't see the witting on the wall at all.

Just the CA government has DOUBLED in size over the past decade. Welfare has expanded like never before. The federal government FORCES states to spend money on welfare. A provision in the spending bill forces states to spend on welfare if they take government money. If the governors refuse to take the money, then they will be bypassed and the money will go straight to the legislature (thus, we must take the money or else, and accept the terms of taking the money). See my thread about the state sovereignty movement. Universal healthcare. The new provisions in that state that the new system will force companies to offer healthcare. They will have to negotiate with the government itself so the government can decide how much and what kind of healthcare you need.

It goes on and on and on my friend, be it in the past couple of decades, or in the past couple of MONTHS.

What is so wrong with European model? You are presenting it like something ultra bad.

For the simple fact that we are not Europe, and Europe has not contributed nearly as much to the world or shared in nearly as much success as this country did in all its time as a capitalist, free market economy under a republic of true principles. Over the past decades as that spirit has begun to fade, the gap between the United States and Europe is being diminished. Fine, lets all become Europeans, and lets all embrace a socialist system. But god dammit you'd better consider the consequences and the steps to follow, because what made us the world superpower, the greatest economy, and the greatest example of freedom and liberty to the entire world DID NOT come about because we decided to be like Europe and shun a system that celebrates the power of the individual in every sector (government, economy, socially, etc.).

People just don't understand where the heck we've come from, where we are going, or what it means. They don't know why or how this country (and certainly the world after it) has enjoyed the success it has. For that, they wont even recognize when we've lost it.